[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 78 - The Impeachment and Trial of Charles Swayne]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF CHARLES SWAYNE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Charges by a State legislature. Section 2469.
2. Investigation by House committee. Sections 2470, 2471,
3. Impeachment at the bar of the Senate and preparation of
articles. Sections 2472-2474.
4. Appointment of managers and exhibition of articles.
Sections 2475, 2476.
5. Organization of Senate for trial. Section 2477.
6. Process issued. Section 2478.
7. Return on summons and appearance of respondent. Section
2479.
8. Respondent's answer. Sections 2480, 2481.
9. Replication of the House. Section 2482.
10. Presentation of testimony. Section 2483.
11. Final arguments. Section 2484.
12. Decision of the Senate. Section 2485.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2469. The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the
northern district of Florida.
A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own
responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial.
Discussion as to the degree of definiteness of charges required to
justify the House in ordering an investigation.
The House declined to have the impeachment of Judge Swayne considered
by a committee before ordering an investigation.
Form of resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the
charges against Judge Swayne.
On December 10, 1903,\1\ Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming
the floor for a question of privilege, said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by
this House is a question of privilege. I have made a joint resolution
adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the
resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption. In
pursuance of this joint resolution of the legislature of the State
which I have the honor in part to represent, I impeach Charles Swayne,
judge of the northern district of the State of Florida, of high crimes
and misdemeanors; and the resolution which I have prepared in
accordance with former proceedings of this House in like cases:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 37-1 Record,
pp. 95, 103.
Sec. 2469
``Whereas the following joint resolution was adopted by the
legislature of the State of Florida:
``Senate joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the
United States court for the northern district of Florida.
``Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Florida:
``Whereas Charles Swayne, United States district judge of the
northern district of Florida, has so conducted himself and his court as
to cause the people of the State to doubt his integrity and to believe
that his official actions as judge are susceptible to corrupt
influences and have been so corruptly influenced;
``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is guilty of a
violation of section 551 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
in that he does not reside in the district for which he was appointed
and of which he is judge, but resides out of the State of Florida and
in the State of Delaware or State of Pennsylvania, in open and defiant
violation of said statute, and has not resided in the northern district
of Florida, for which he was appointed, in ten years, and is constantly
absent from said district, only making temporary visits for a pretense
of discharging his official duties;
``Whereas the reputation of Charles Swayne as a corrupt judge is very
injurious to the interests of the entire State of Florida, and his
constant absence from his supposed district causes great sacrifice of
their rights and annoyance and expense to litigants in his court;
``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is not only a
corrupt judge, but that he is ignorant and incompetent, and that his
judicial opinions do not command the respect or confidence of the
people;
``Whereas the administration of the United States bankruptcy act in
the court of said Charles Swayne and by his appointed referee has
resulted in every instance in the waste of the assets of the alleged
bankrupt by being absorbed in unnecessary costs, expenses, and
allowances, to the great wrong and injury of creditors and others,
until such administration is, in effect, legalized robbery and a stench
in the nostrils of all good people:
``Be it resolved by the house of representatives of the State of
Florida (the senate concurring), That our Senators and Representatives
in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to
cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper
proceedings for the investigation of the proceedings of the United
States circuit and districts court for the northern district of Florida
by Charles Swayne as United States judge for the northern district of
Florida, and of his acts and doings as such judge, to the end that he
may be impeached and removed from such office.
``Be it resolved further, That the secretary of state of the State of
Florida be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to each Senator and
Representative in the Congress of the United States, under the great
seal of the State of Florida, a copy of this resolution and its
unanimous adoption by the legislature of the State of Florida.
``STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
``UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Florida, ss:
``I, H. Clay Crawford, secretary of state of the State of Florida,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of senate
joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the United
States court for the northern district of Florida, passed by the
legislature of Florida, session of 1903, and on file in this office.
``Given under my hand and the great seal of the State of Florida at
Tallahassee, the capital, this the 7th day of September, A. D. 1903.
[l. s.]
`` `H. Clay Crawford, Secretary of State.
``Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to
inquire and report whether the action of this House is requisite
concerning the official misconduct of Charles Swayne, judge of the
United States district court for the northern district of Florida, and
say whether said judge has held terms of his court as required by law;
whether he has continuously and persistently absented himself from the
said State, and whether his acts and omissions in his office of judge
have been such as in any degree to deprive the people of that district
of the benefits of the court therein to amount to a denial of justice;
whether the said judge has been guilty of corrupt conduct in office,
and whether his administration of his office has resulted in injury and
wrong to litigants of his court.
Sec. 2470
``And in reference to this investigation the said committee is hereby
authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, administer
oaths, take testimony, and to employ a clerk and stenographer, if
necessary, to send a subcommittee whenever and wherever it may be
necessary to take testimony for the use of said committee. And the said
subcommittee while so employed shall have the same powers in respect to
obtaining testimony as are herein given to said Committee on the
Judiciary, with a sergeant-at-arms, by himself or deputy, who shall
serve the processes of said committee and subcommittee and execute its
orders, and shall attend the sittings of the same as ordered and
directed thereby. And that the expense of such investigation shall be
paid out of the contingent fund of the House.''
Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, raised the question that the
specifications made by the Member from Florida were not sufficiently
specific; and after debate Mr. Lamar said:
I charge this judge, first, with continued, persistent, and, if you
please, pernicious absenteeism from his district; second, with corrupt
official conduct, based upon several matters. * * * Third, I charge
Judge Swayne with maladministration of judicial matters in his court,
so much so as to embarrass bankrupts and annihilate the assets of
litigants and others appearing within his jurisdiction
Renewed objection being made that charges should be more definite and
better substantiated in order to initiate proceedings so important, Mr.
John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved that the resolution be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
After debate the motion of Mr. Lacey was disagreed to, ayes 53, noes
129.
The resolution was then agreed to without division.
2470. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The resolution impeaching Judge Swayne was reported from a divided
committee.
The committee investigating Judge Swayne took testimony in the
Judge's district as well as in Washington.
In the investigation of the conduct of Judge Swayne the accused was
present in person with counsel and argued his own case.
In investigating the conduct of Judge Swayne both complainants and
accused were permitted to introduce sworn testimony.
On March 25, 1904, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, from the
Committee on the Judiciary, presented the report \1\ of that committee.
The report says:
Testimony was taken in Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville,
Fla., and in the city of Washington upon several days. At all the
hearings the Hon. Charles Swayne was present himself and by counsel,
except at the last hearings in Washington, when he appeared in propria
persona and argued his case before the subcommittee. All the witnesses
asked for by the complainants and the respondent were sworn. Their
evidence was reduced to writing and is presented with this report.
Specifications of the particular matters covered by the general
charges were furnished the committee by the complainants. They were as
follows:
Specification 1.--That the said Charles Swayne, judge of the United
States court in and for the northern district of Florida, for ten
years, while he has been such judge, was a nonresident of the State of
Florida, and resided in the State of Delaware. That he never pretended
to reside in Florida until May, 1903. That during said time of his
nonresidence, by such nonresidence, he has caused great inconvenience,
annoyance, injury, and expense to litigants in his court, not so much
by failure to hold terms of court as by failing to be in reach for the
disposition of admiralty and chancery matters and other matters arising
between terms of court needing disposition.
Specification 2.--That said Charles Swayne, as such judge, appointed
one B. C. Tunison as United States commissioner; that it was charged
that it was an improper appointment, and that testimony was offered to
such effect before said appointment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Report No. 1905.
Sec. 2470
Specification 3.--That the said Charles Swayne, as such judge,
appointed and maintains one John Thomas Porter as United States
commissioner at Marianna, but that said Porter does not reside at
Marianna, but at Grand Ridge, 16 miles away, and is never at Marianna
or at his office except when notified of an arrest, necessitating
people having business with the United States commissioner, often at
expense and inconvenience, to go to Grand Ridge, and necessitating the
holding of prisoners often for a day or two, at their inconvenience,
and in imprisonment at the expense of the Government, until said Porter
sees fit to come to Marianna.
The said Swayne, although there is great necessity for a commissioner
at Marianna, has refused to appoint such.
Specification 4.--That said Swayne, in the administration of his
court, has been guilty of great partiality and favoritism to one B. C.
Tunison, mentioned in specification No. 2, and a practicing attorney in
said court. That so great and well known has this partiality and
favoritism become that it has created the general impression that to
succeed in that court before the said Swayne it is necessary to retain
the said Tunison.
Specification 5.--That said Swayne has been guilty of oppression and
tyranny in his office, incorrectly and oppressively and without just
cause imprisoning one W. C. O'Neal, one E. T. Davis, and one Simeon
Belding upon feigned, fictitious, and false charges of contempt of his
said court.
Specification 6.--That said Charles Swayne has willfully,
negligently, and corruptly maladministered bankruptcy cases in his
court, to the extent that the assets of bankrupts have, in all or
nearly all cases, been squandered and dissipated in paying
extraordinary fees and expenses, and never paying any dividends to
creditors.
Specification 7.--That said Charles Swayne was guilty of oppression
and tyranny in his office to one Charles Hoskins, upon an alleged
contempt resulting in the suicide of the said Hoskins, and said alleged
contempt proceedings being brought for the purpose of breaking down and
injuring one W. R. Hoskins, who was charged in said court with
involuntary bankruptcy, but who was defending and resisting such
charge.
Specification 8.--That said Swayne corruptly purchased a house and
lot in the city of Pensacola while the said house and lot was in
litigation in his court.
Specification 9.--Ignorance and incompetency to hold said position.
Under this specification many illustrations could be given, among them
a case in which he took jurisdiction in admiralty in violation of the
treaty between the United States and Sweden and Norway; and in one
case, that of Sweet v. Owl Commercial Company, in which he charged the
jury to exactly and diametrically conflicting theories of law.
Specification 11.--That said Swayne, by reason of his absence from
the State, failed to hold the term of court which should have been held
at Tallahassee in the fall of the year 1902, during the months of
November or December.
Specification 12.--That the said Charles Swayne has been guilty of
conduct unbecoming an upright judge, in that he has procured as
indorsers on his note, for the purpose of borrowing money, attorneys
and litigants having cases pending in his court.
Specification 13.--That the said Charles Swayne has been guilty of
maladministration in the affairs of the conduct of his office; that he
has discharged people convicted of crime in his court. Illustration,
case of Alonzo Love, convicted in the year of 1902, of perjury.
The committee found that the evidence sustained the first, fourth,
fifth, and seventh specifications, and concluded:
The charges and specifications not covered by the foregoing findings
were not proved by sufficient evidence to warrant action upon them.
Upon the whole case it is plain that Judge Swayne has forfeited the
respect and confidence of the bar of his court and of the people of his
district who do business there. He has so conducted himself as to earn
the reputation of being susceptible to the malign influence of a man of
notoriously bad character. He has shown himself to be harsh,
tyrannical, and oppressive, unmindful of the common rule of a just and
upright judge. He has continuously and persistently violated the plain
words of a statute of the United States, and subjected himself to
punishment for the commission of a high misdemeanor. He has fined and
imprisoned members of his bar for a constructive contempt without the
authority of law and without a decent show of reason, either through
inexcusable ignorance, a malicious intent to injure,
Sec. 2471
or a wanton disposition to exercise arbitrary power. He has condemned
to a term of imprisonment in the county jail a reputable citizen of the
State of Florida over whom he had no jurisdiction, who was guilty of no
thought of a contempt of his court, for no offense against him or in
the presence of the court, or ``in obstruction of any order, rule,
command, or decree,'' and after the accused had purged himself on oath.
For all those reasons Charles Swayne has been guilty of misbehavior
in his office of judge and grossly violated the condition upon which he
holds this honorable appointment. The honor of the judiciary, the
orderly and decent administration of public justice, and the welfare of
the people of the United States demand his impeachment and removal from
the high place which his conduct has degraded.
It is vitally necessary to maintain the confidence of the people in
the judiciary. A weak executive or an inefficient or even dishonest
legislative branch may exist, for a time at least, without serious
injury to the perpetuity of our free institutions, but if the people
lose faith in the judicial branch, if they become convinced that
justice can not be had at the hands of the judges, the next step will
be to take the administration of the law into their own hands and do
justice according to the rule of the mob, which is anarchy, with which
freedom can not coexist.
The Committee on the Judiciary recommend the adoption of the
following resolution:
``Resolved, That Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, be impeached
of high misdemeanor.''
A minority of the committee composed of Messrs. J. N. Gillett, of
California, Robert M. Nevin, of Ohio, D. S. Alexander, of New York,
George A. Pearre, of Maryland, Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, and
Richard W. Parker, of New Jersey, joined in minority views dissenting
from the conclusions of the committee, and holding that the evidence
did not justify impeachment.
2471. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The impeachment of Judge Swayne was postponed to the next session of
Congress for further investigation.
In the second investigation Judge Swayne testified on his own behalf
and was cross-examined.
The rule as to the pertinency of evidence to the charges was enforced
in the investigation of Judge Swayne's conduct.
The closing arguments in the Swayne investigation were heard before
the subcommittee which had taken the evidence.
On April 7, 1904,\1\ Mr. Palmer offered as a question of privilege
the following, which was agreed to without division:
Resolved, That the consideration of the resolution (No. 274) reported
by the Committee on the Judiciary in the matter of the impeachment of
Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in the
northern district of Florida, be postponed until the 13th day of
December, 1904, and that the Committee on the Judiciary be, and it is
hereby, authorized to take such further testimony as may be offered by
the complainants or the respondent, and report the same to the House,
with its conclusions thereon. The said committee and subcommittee shall
have all the authority conferred by the original resolution (No. 86),
and the further authority to take testimony when Congress is not in
session.
In accordance with this resolution a subcommittee composed of Messrs.
Palmer, Clayton, and Gillett took testimony at various times from
February 13 to November 29, 1904.\2\ In the course of these proceedings
\3\ Judge Swayne, besides having
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p. 4431.
\2\ See published evidence, ``Washington: Government Printing Office,
1904.''
\3\ See page 211 of testimony.
Sec. 2471
counsel, also appeared for himself, offered evidence, and cross-
examined witnesses; and Hon. B. S. Liddon appeared for the
complainants. In the course of the testimony Judge Swayne made ``a
statement to the stenographer,'' which is published with the evidence,
and later it appears that ``Charles Swayne, having been recalled,
testified as follows.'' \1\ After he had concluded his direct statement
he was cross-examined by Mr. Liddon at length.\2\
As to the character of the testimony permitted in the examination
before the subcommittee, the chairman, Mr. Palmer, stated \3\ that no
testimony would be received on irrelevant questions or on charges
which, if proven, would not be considered grounds of impeachment.
Hearsay testimony was, on objection, ruled out.\4\ On the question of
relevancy one notable ruling was made.\5\ Judge Swayne was charged with
having certified as expenses sums greater than he had actually
expended. His counsel attempted to introduce documents to show that
other Federal judges did likewise. This evidence was excluded by the
subcommittee on the ground that it was not relevant to Judge Swayne's
case. In the course of the proceedings a question arose as to whether
the briefs or arguments should be heard before the subcommittee or
before the whole Judiciary Committee.\6\ In fact, they were heard
before the subcommittee.
On December 9, 1904,\7\ Mr. Palmer reported from the Judiciary
Committee the testimony, with the following resolution, adopted by a
majority of the committee:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary respectfully report to
the House the testimony taken in the case of Charles Swayne since
Congress adjourned, with the conclusion that in their opinion said
testimony strengthens the case against the said Charles Swayne.
The minority views, submitted by Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New
Jersey, and concurred in by Messrs. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin; D.
S. Alexander, of New York; Vespasian Warner, of Illinois; Charles E.
Littlefield, of Maine; Lot Thomas, of Iowa; J. N. Gillett, of
California, and George A. Pearre, of Maryland, contended that the
additional evidence weakened rather than strengthened the case, except
as to the charge as to false certificates of expenses of travel. On
this point the minority say:
Evidence as to the alleged practice of other judges in this respect
was offered and excluded, and we think properly. It would have been
competent for him, when a witness in his own behalf, to have stated why
he made those certificates. As a witness he answered and explained
every other charge. This charge he made no effort as a witness to
answer or explain. The inference from the record, on general
principles, is that the charge is admitted to be true and that he has
no answer or explanation thereto. Whether a satisfactory explanation
can be made we do not say. We must take the record as it stands.
Upon this record, unanswered and unexplained, we are of the opinion
that in this particular an impeachable offense has been made out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pages 240, 578.
\2\ Page 591.
\3\ Page 7 of testimony; also p. 240.
\4\ Pages 8, 46.
\5\ Pages 433-435.
\6\ Pages 242, 243.
\7\ House Report No. 3021, third session Fifty-eighth Congress.
Sec. 2472
2472. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Form of resolutions impeaching Judge Swayne and directing that the
impeachment be carried to the bar of the Senate.
The House decided that the articles impeaching Judge Swayne should be
prepared by a select committee.
Constitution of the committee to carry the Swayne impeachment to the
Senate.
The Speaker, in the committee to draw the articles in the Swayne
case, gave minority representation to those opposed generally to the
impeachment.
On December 13, 1904,\1\ the reports were considered in the House,
the pending resolution being:
Resolved, That Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, be impeached
of high misdemeanor.
At the conclusion of the debate, on motion of Mr. Palmer, the House
agreed to the following amendment:
Amend by striking out all after the word ``Resolved'' and inserting
``That Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States
in and for the northern district of Florida, be impeached of high
crimes and misdemeanors.''
The previous question was then ordered on the amendment and original
resolution by a vote of ayes 198, noes 61. The amendment was then
agreed to, and then the resolution as amended was agreed to without
division.
Then, on motion of Mr. Palmer, it was--
Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to go to the Senate
and at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives and
of all the people of the United States, to impeach Charles Swayne,
judge of the district court of the United States for the northern
district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and to
acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time
exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and make good
the same; and that the committee do demand that the Senate take order
for the appearance of said Charles Swayne to answer said impeachment.
Mr. Palmer then offered \2\ the following:
Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed to prepare and
report articles of impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the
district court of the United States for the northern district of
Florida, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Mr. Palmer explained that this resolution was in accordance with all
the precedents except that of the Belknap case, wherein the Judiciary
Committee had framed the articles.
Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, proposed this amendment:
Strike out ``a committee of seven is appointed'' and insert ``the
Committee on the Judiciary be empowered.''
The question being taken, the amendment was disagreed to, ayes 113,
noes 140. Then the original resolution was agreed to without division.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress; Record, pp. 214-249.
\2\ House Journal, p. 51; Record, p. 248.
Sec. 2473
On the same day \1\ the Speaker \2\ appointed the following committee
to carry the impeachment to the bar of the Senate: Messrs. Henry W.
Palmer, of Pennsylvania; John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin; J. N. Gillett,
of California; Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, and David H. Smith, of
Kentucky. All of these were members of the Committee on the Judiciary,
two of them belonged to the minority party in the House, and two had
signed the minority views which accompanied the report from the
Judiciary Committee.
On December 14,\3\ the Speaker announced the appointment of the
following committee to prepare articles of impeachment: Messrs. Henry
W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania; J. N. Gillett, of California; Richard Wayne
Parker, of New Jersey; Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine; Samuel L.
Powers, of Massachusetts; Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, and David A. De
Armond, of Missouri. Three of these gentlemen had signed the minority
views on the question of impeachment. The minority party in the House
was also represented by three members of the committee.
2473. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Forms and ceremonies of presenting the Swayne impeachment in the
Senate.
On December 14,\4\ in the Senate, a message from the House of
Representatives by Mr. W. J. Browning, its Chief Clerk, was delivered,
as follows:
Mr. President, I am directed by the House of Representatives to
communicate to the Senate the following resolution:
``Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to go to the
Senate, and, at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of
Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to impeach
Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States, for
the northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in
office, and to acquaint the Senate that the House of Representatives
will in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him
and make good the same, and that the committee do demand that the
Senate take order for the appearance of said Charles Swayne to answer
said impeachment.
``The Speaker announced the appointment of Mr. Palmer of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Jenkins of Wisconsin, Mr. Gillett of California, Mr.
Clayton of Alabama, and Mr. Smith of Kentucky, members of said
committee.''
The Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms (B. W. Layton) announced the presence
of the committee from the House of Representatives.
The President pro tempore \5\ said:
The Senate will receive the committee from the House of
Representatives.
The committee from the House of Representatives was escorted by the
Sergeant-at-Arms (D. M. Ransdell) to the area in front of the Vice-
President's desk, and its chairman, Mr. Palmer, said:
Mr. President, in obedience to the order of the House of
Representatives we appear before you, and in the name of the House of
Representatives and of all the people of the United States of America
we do impeach Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United
States for the northern district of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 51; Record, p. 249.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ House Journal, p. 55; Record, p. 277.
\4\ Senate Journal, p. 38; Record, p. 257.
\5\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
Sec. 2473
Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in office; and we do further
inform the Senate that the House of Representatives will in due time
exhibit articles of impeachment against him and make good the same. And
in their name we demand that the Senate shall take order for the
appearance of the said Charles Swayne to answer the said impeachment.
The President pro tempore said:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee of the House of
Representatives, the Chair begs to assure you that the Senate will take
proper order in the premises, notice of which will be given to the
House.
The committee of the House of Representatives thereupon retired from
the Chamber.
On the same day, in the Senate,\1\ Mr. Orville H. Platt, of
Connecticut, presented the following resolution, which was agreed to:
Resolved, That the message of the House of Representatives relating
to the impeachment of Charles Swayne be referred to a select committee
to consist of five Senators to be appointed by the President pro
tempore.
The President pro tempore thereupon appointed Messrs. Platt, of
Connecticut; Clarence D. Clark, of Wyoming; Charles W. Fairbanks, of
Indiana; Augustus A. Bacon, of Georgia, and Edmund W. Pettus, of
Alabama.
In the House of Representatives, on the same day,\2\ the committee
appointed to go to the Senate and at the bar thereof and, in the name
of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United
States, to impeach Judge Charles Swayne, appeared at the bar of the
House.
Mr. Palmer being recognized, reported verbally:
Mr. Speaker, in obedience to the order of the House, we proceeded to
the bar of the Senate, and, in the name of this body and of all the
people of the United States, we impeached, as we were directed to do,
Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States for
the northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in
office, and we demanded that the Senate should take order to make him
appear before that body to answer for the same; and announced that the
House would soon present articles of impeachment and make them good, to
which the response was: ``Order shall be taken.''
On December 15,\3\ in the Senate, Mr. Platt, from the select
committee, reported the following, which was agreed to by the Senate:
Whereas the House of Representatives, on the 14th day of December,
1904, by five of its Members (Mr. Palmer, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Jenkins,
of Wisconsin; Mr. Gillett, of California; Mr. Clayton, of Alabama, and
Mr. Smith, of Kentucky), at the bar of the Senate impeached Charles
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States for the
northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors in
office, and informed the Senate that the House of Representatives will
in due time exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him and
make good the same; and likewise demanded that the senate take order
for the appearance of the said Charles Swayne to answer the said
impeachment: Therefore,
Ordered, That the Senate will, according to its standing rule and
orders in such cases provided, take proper order thereon (upon the
presentation of the articles of impeachment), of which due notice shall
be given to the House of Representatives.
Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
herewith.
On the same day,\4\ in the House, the message was received, and
having been read, was ordered to lie on the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 39; Record, p. 265.
\2\ House Journal, p. 56; Record, p. 281.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 40; Record, pp. 295, 296.
\4\ House Journal, p. 69; Record, p. 321.
Sec. 2474
2474. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The articles impeaching Judge Swayne were reported from a divided
committee and agreed to by a divided House.
On January 10, 1905,\1\ Mr. Palmer, from the select committee
appointed to prepare articles of impeachment, presented the report of
the majority of that committee as follows:
The select committee appointed to prepare and report articles of
impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the
United States for the northern district of Florida, appointed December
13, 1904, submit the following report:
That the evidence heretofore taken in the matter of the impeachment
of Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in
and for the northern district of Florida, sustains twelve articles of
impeachment, which are submitted herewith, with the recommendation that
they be adopted by the House and exhibited to the Senate. [Here
followed the articles.]
Messrs. Littlefield, Parker, and Gillett filed minority views.
Messrs. Littlefield and Parker in their views said:
The House must establish the truth of these articles, by competent
testimony, beyond reasonable doubt.
The only articles which, in our judgment, the record as it now stands
would sustain are based upon the certificates of expenses. As to these
it was claimed in the hearings that other judges have construed the law
as it was construed by Judge Swayne, and evidence was offered to
establish that claim and excluded.
We dissent from all the other articles, and especially as to those
based upon the contempt proceedings in the Davis, Belden, and O'Neal
cases. These cases clearly involved willful and marked contempt of
court, and demanded exemplary and summary punishment from any self-
respecting court.
The charge as to nonresidence is not supported by such evidence as
warrants the adoption of articles in that regard.
The use of the private car, which is the proper subject of adverse
criticism, taking into account the fact that there is no intimation or
claim that any judicial act was influenced, or attempted to be
influenced thereby, is not of such gravity as to justify impeachment
proceedings therefor.
The car incident occurred more than ten years ago, and no residence
question has existed for more than four years. No statute of
limitations can apply, but the great proceeding of impeachment is not
to be used as to stale charges not affecting the moral character or the
present fitness of the officer to perform his duty.
Mr. Gillett concurred in these views except as to the certificates of
expenses, saying:
I concur in all that is said in the foregoing ``Views of the
minority'' except as to the certificates for expenses. At the hearing
before the committee Judge Swayne offered to prove the custom and
practice of the Federal judges in making certificates for their
reasonable expenses for travel and attendance when holding court out of
their district, the purpose being to show a judicial construction of
the statute under which these expenses were allowed. This offer was
denied by the committee and an inquiry upon this subject shut off.
Therefore, for this reason, the record is silent upon matters which,
in my judgment, should have been submitted to the consideration of this
House. The record is silent as to the custom and practice of other
judges in this particular, as to the construction which they placed
upon the statute, and as to the construction which the disbursing and
auditing officers of the Government gave it.
The intent with which Judge Swayne made these certificates is of
controlling importance, and all of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the matter, the practice and customs of other judges, and
the construction placed upon the statute by them and by the Government,
if any, are and were proper subjects of inquiry. While the record is
silent on these questions, for the reason above stated, still it
appears from official records, some of which have been furnished to me
by the Treasury Depart-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 115; Record, pp. 665-667; House Report, No.
3477.
Sec. 2475
ment, that a majority of the district and circuit judges in five
circuits, selected at random, make out certificates for $10 a day, and
in two of these districts every judge made out such certificates,
I am inclined to believe that where a practice has been so general
these judges acted in good faith with an honest belief that a fair
construction of the statute gave them $10 a day for an allowance for
travel and attendance while attending court out of their district, and
I also feel that this House would with great reluctance pass a
resolution impeaching them all; and if not all, why one?
On this article my mind is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that Judge Swayne, in following a practice so well established by so
many honorable men, committed a criminal offense for which he should
either be prosecuted or impeached, and giving him the benefit of this
doubt I can not consent to any impeachment on that ground.
On January 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18,\1\ the articles were debated at
length, and on the latter day the question was taken first on a motion
of Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine, to lay the first three
articles on the table. This motion was disagreed to,\2\ yeas 159, nays
167.
Then the question was taken on agreeing to the first three articles
(relating to the false certificates), and they were agreed to-yeas 165,
nays 160.
The question was next taken on the fourth and fifth articles, a
division of the question being demanded so as to vote on those two
articles separated from the remaining articles.
Then, by unanimous consent, it was permitted that the House, by a
single vote, should pass on two similar amendments which Mr. Marlin E.
Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, proposed, the one to article 4 and the other
to article 5. Mr. Olmsted explained the amendments as follows:
The change which I propose is perhaps not very material; but it may
be. He is charged in article 4 and again in article 5, as they now
stand, with having appropriated to his own use, under a claim of right,
the car of a certain railroad company and the provisions therein under
the claim that, being in the hands of a receiver, he had a right to use
them. Now, the facts are, according to the testimony of Judge Swayne
himself and of Mr. Axtell, attorney for the receiver, that Judge Swayne
did not appropriate the car, nor demand it, nor claim it as a right. It
was the receiver's own suggestion. The receiver tendered Judge Swayne
the car and the provisions therein, and Judge Swayne accepted them.
The question being taken, Mr. Olmsted's amendments were disagreed to
without division.
Then, by yeas 162, nays 138, articles 4 and 5 were agreed to.
Articles 6 and 7 were then agreed to, yeas 159, nays 136.
Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11, were agreed to, without division.
Also articles 12 and 13 were agreed to without division.
2475. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Forms of resolutions authorizing the appointment of managers of the
Swayne impeachment and directing the articles to be exhibited in the
Senate.
Constitution of the managers of the Swayne impeachment.
Then, on motion of Mr. Palmer, the following resolutions were
severally agreed to: \3\
Resolved, That seven managers be appointed by the Speaker of this
House to conduct the impeachment against Charles Swayne, judge of the
district court of the United States in and for the northern district of
Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, pp. 754-764, 806-822, 925-950, 972-993, 1021-1058.
\2\ House Journal, pp. 158-163; Record, pp. 1053-1058.
\3\ Home Journal, pp. 162, 163; Record, p. 1058.
Sec. 2476
Resolved, That the articles agreed to by this House to be exhibited
in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States
against Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United
States in and for the northern district of Florida, in maintenance of
their impeachment against him of high crimes and misdemeanors in office
be carried to the Senate by the managers appointed to conduct said
impeachment.
On January 21,\1\ the Speaker announced the appointment of the
following managers:
Messrs. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania; Samuel L. Powers, of
Massachusetts; Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania; James B. Perkins, of
New York; Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama; David A. De Armond, of
Missouri, and David H. Smith, of Kentucky.
Four of the managers belonged to the majority party in the House and
three to the minority. All but two were members of the Judiciary
Committee. The entire number were favorable to the impeachment, and all
had voted for all the articles of impeachment so far as appeared by
record votes, except Mr. Powers, who was absent, and Mr. Olmsted, who
answered present on the roll call on articles 4 and 5. He voted for the
other articles. Mr. Powers was of the committee which framed the
articles, and joined in the report favorable to them.
The managers having been appointed, Mr. Palmer offered this
resolution, which was agreed to:
Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that
this House has appointed Mr. Palmer, Mr. Powers, of Massachusetts, Mr.
Olmsted, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Clayton, Mr. De Armond, and Mr. Smith, of
Kentucky, managers to conduct the impeachment against Charles Swayne,
judge of the district court of the United States in and for the
northern district of Florida, and have directed the said managers to
carry to the Senate the articles agreed upon by this House to be
exhibited for maintenance of their impeachment against said Charles
Swayne, and that the Clerk of the House do go with said message.
On the same day \2\ the message was transmitted to the Senate and
received there. Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, it
was
Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate is ready to receive the managers appointed by the House for
the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment against Charles
Swayne, judge of the distaict court of the United States for the
northern district of Florida, agreeably to the notice communicated to
the Senate.
On January 23,\3\ Mr. Palmer, in the House, claiming the floor for a
matter of privilege, offered the following resolution, which was agreed
to by the House:
Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House in the matter of
the impeachment of Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States
in and for the northern district of Florida, be, and they are hereby,
authorized to employ a clerk, stenographer, and messenger, and to incur
such expense as may be necessary in the preparation and conduct of the
case, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.
2476. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Ceremonies of the exhibition of the articles impeaching Judge Swayne.
The articles of impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne.
Having exhibited in the Senate the articles impeaching Judge Swayne,
the managers reported verbally to the House.
On January 24 \4\ in the Senate, at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
the managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 183; Record, p. 1202.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 108; Record, p. 1176.
\3\ House Journal, p. 186; Record, p. 1246.
\4\ Senate Journal, p. 119; Record, pp. 1281-1283.
Sec. 2476
of the impeachment, on the part of the House of Representatives, of
Judge Charles Swayne appeared below the bar of the Senate, and the
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms (Alonzo H. Stewart) announced their presence
as follows:
I have the honor to announce the managers on the part of the House of
Representatives to conduct the impeachment against Charles Swayne,
judge of the United States district court for the northern district of
Florida.
The President pro tempore. The managers on the part of the House will
be received, and the Sergeant-at-Arms will assign them their seats.
The managers were thereupon escorted by the Assistant Sergeant-at-
Arms of the Senate to the seats assigned to them in the area in front
of the Chair.
The President pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make
proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms (D. M. Ransdell) made proclamation as follows:
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons will keep silence, on pain of
imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the
Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Charles
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States for the
northern district of Florida.
Mr. Manager Palmer. Mr. President.
The President pro tempore. Mr. Manager.
Mr. Manager Palmer. The managers on the part of the House of
Representatives are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against
Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States in and for the
northern district of Florida, as directed by the House, in the words
and figures following: \1\
Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States
of America, in the name of themselves and of all the
people of the United States of America, against
Charles Swayne, a judge of the United States, in and
for the northern district of Florida, in maintenance
and Support of their impeachment against him for high
crimes and misdemeanor in office.
Article 1. That the said Charles Swayne, at Waco, in the State of
Texas, on the 20th day of April, 1897, being then and there a United
States district judge in and for the northern district of Florida, did
then and there, as said judge, make and present to R. M. Love, then and
there being the United States marshal in and for the northern district
of Texas, a false claim against the Government of the United States in
the sum of $230, then and there knowing said claim to be false, and for
the purpose of obtaining payment of said false claim, did then and
there as said judge, make and use a certain false certificate then and
there knowing said certificate to be false, said certificate being in
the words and figures following:
``United States of America, Northern District of Texas, ss:
``I, Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States for the
northern district of Florida, do hereby certify that I was directed to
and held court at the city of Waco, in the northern district of Texas,
twenty-three days, commencing on the 20th day of April, 1897; also,
that the time engaged in holding said court, and in going to and
returning from the same, was twenty-three days, and that my reasonable
expenses for travel and attendance amounted to the sum of two hundred
and thirty dollars and ------ cents, which sum is justly due me for
such attendance and travel.
Chas. Swayne, Judge.
``Waco, May 15, 1897.
``Received of R. M. Love, United States marshal for the northern
district of Texas, the sum of 230 dollars and no cents in full payment
of the above account.
``$230.
``Chas. Swayne.''
when in truth and in fact, as the said Charles Swayne then and there
well knew, there was then and there justly due the said Swayne from the
Government of the United States, and from said United States marshal a
far less sum, whereby he has been guilty of a high crime and
misdemeanor in his said office.
Art. 2. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed,
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his
office, and while in the exercise of his office as judge, as aforesaid,
the said Charles Swayne was entitled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The articles were enrolled on parchment, following the practice
of the early trials. In the later trials of Johnson and Belknap the
articles had been engrossed on ordinary white paper.
Sec. 2476
by law to be paid his reasonable expenses for travel and attendance
when lawfully directed to hold court outside of the northern district
of Florida, not to exceed $10 per diem, to be paid upon his certificate
by the United States marshal for the district in which the court was
held, and was forbidden by law to receive compensation for such
services. Yet the said Charles Swayne, well knowing these provisions,
falsely certified that his reasonable expenses for travel and
attendance were $10 per diem while holding court at Tyler, Tex.,
twenty-four days commencing December 3, 1900, and seven days going to
and returning from said Tyler, Tex., and received therefor from the
Treasury of the United States, by the hand of John Grant, the United
States marshal for the eastern district of Texas, the sum of $310, when
the reasonable expenses incurred and paid by the said Charles Swayne
for travel and attendance did not amount to the sum of $10 per diem.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself and was and is guilty of a high crime, to wit, the crime of
obtaining money from the United States by a false pretense, and of a
high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 3. That the said Charles Swayne having been duly appointed,
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his
office, and while in the exercise of his office of judge as aforesaid
was, entitled by law to be paid his reasonable expenses for travel and
attendance when lawfully directed to hold court outside of the
northerns district of Florida, not to exceed $10 per diem, to be paid
upon his certificate by the United States marshal of the district in
which the court was held, and was forbidden by law to receive any
compensation for such services. Yet the said Charles Swayne, well
knowing these provisions, falsely certified that his reasonable
expenses for travel in going to and coming from and attendance were $10
per diem while holding court at Tyler, Tex., thirty-five days from
January 12, 1903, and six days going to and returning from said Tyler,
Tex., and received therefor from the Treasury of the United States, by
the hand of A. J. Houston, the United States marshal for the eastern
district of Texas, the sum of $410, when the reasonable expenses of the
said Charles Swayne incurred and paid by him during said period were
much less than said sum.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself and was and is guilty of a high crime, to wit, obtaining money
from the United States by a false pretense, and of a high misdemeanor
in office.
Art. 4. That the said Charles Swayne having been duly appointed,
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his
office, and while in the exercise of his office as judge as aforesaid
heretofore, to wit, A. D. 1893, did unlawfully appropriate to his own
use, without making compensation to the owner, a certain railroad car,
belonging to the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, for
the purpose of transporting himself, his family, and friends from
Guyencourt, in the State of Delaware, to Jacksonville, Fla., the said
railroad company being at the time in the possession of a receiver
appointed by said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, on the petition
of creditors.
The said car was supplied with provisions by the said receiver, which
were consumed by said Swayne and his friends, and was provided with a
conductor or porter at the cost and expense of said railroad company,
and with transportation over connecting lines. The expenses of the trip
were paid by the said receiver out of the funds of the said
Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, and the said Charles
Swayne, acting as judge, allowed the credit claimed by the said
receiver for and on account of the said expenditure as a part of the
necessary expenses of operating said road. The said Charles Swayne,
judge as aforesaid, used the said property without making compensation
to the owner, and under a claim of right, for the reason that the same
was in the hands of a receiver appointed by him.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, was and is
guilty of an abuse of judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in
office.
Art. 5. That the said Charles Swayne was duly appointed,
commissioned, and confirmed as judge of the United States in and for
the northern district of Florida, and entered upon the duties of said
office, and while in the exercise of his office of judge as aforesaid
heretofore, to wit, A. D. 1893, did unlawfully appropriate to his own
use, without making compensation to the owner, a certain railroad car
belonging to the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company for
the purpose of transporting himself, his family, and friends from
Jacksonville, Fla., to California, said railroad company being at the
time in the possession of a receiver appointed by the said Charles
Swaye, judge as aforesaid, on the petition of creditors.
Sec. 2476
The car was supplied with some provisions by the said receiver, which
were consumed by the said Swayne and his friends, and it was provided
with a porter at the cost and expense of the railroad company and also
with transportation over connecting lines. The wages of said porter and
the cost of said provisions were paid by the said receiver out of the
funds of the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, and the
said Charles Swayne, acting as judge as aforesaid, allowed the credits
claimed by the said receiver for and on account of the said
expenditures as a part of the necessary expenses of operating the said
railroad. The said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, used the said
property without making compensation to the owner under a claim of
right, alleging that the same was in the hands of a receiver appointed
by him and he therefore had a right to use the same.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, was and is
guilty of an abuse of judicial power and of high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 6. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed and
confirmed, was commissioned district judge of the United States in and
for the northern district of Florida on the 1st day of April, A. D.
1890, to serve during good behavior, and thereafter, to wit, on the 22d
day of April, A. D. 1890, took the oath of office and assumed the
duties of his appointment, and established his residence at the city of
St. Augustine, in the State of Florida, which was at that time within
the said northern district. That subsequently, by an act of Congress
approved the 23d of July, A. D. 1894, the boundaries of the said
northern district of Florida were changed, and the city of St.
Augustine and contiguous territory were transferred to the southern
district of Florida; whereupon it became and was the duty of the said
Charles Swayne to change his residence and reside in the northern
district of Florida and to comply with the five hundred and fifty-first
section of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provides
that--
``A district judge shall be appointed for each district, except in
cases hereinafter provided. Every judge shall reside in the district
for which he is appointed, and for offending against this provision
shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.''
Nevertheless the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, did not
acquire a residence, and did not, within the intent and meaning of said
act, reside in his said district, to wit, the northern district of
Florida, from the 23d day of July, A. D. 1894, to the 1st day of
October, A. D. 1900, a period of about six years.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, willfully and
knowingly violated the aforesaid law and was and is guilty of a high
misdemeanor in office.
Art. 7. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed and
confirmed, was commissioned district judge of the United States in and
for the northern district of Florida on the 1st day of April, A. D.
1890, to serve during good behavior, and thereafter, to wit, on the 22d
day of April, A. D. 1890, took the oath of office and assumed the
duties of his appointment, and established his residence at the city of
St. Augustine, in the State of Florida, which was at that time within
the said northern district. That subsequently, by an act of Congress of
the United States approved the 23d day of July, A. D. 1894, the
boundaries of the said northern district of Florida were changed, and
the city of St. Augustine, with the contiguous territory, was
transferred to the southern district of Florida, whereupon it became
and was the duty of the said Charles Swayne to change his residence and
reside in the northern district of Florida, as defined by said act of
Congress, and to comply with section 551 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, which provides that--
``A district judge shall be appointed for each district, except in
cases hereinafter provided. Every judge shall reside in the district
for which he is appointed, and for offending against this provision
shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.''
Nevertheless, the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, totally
disregarding his duty as aforesaid, did not acquire a residence, and
within the intent and meaning of said act did not reside in his said
district, to wit, the northern district of Florida, from the 23d day of
July, A. D. 1894, to the 1st day of January, A. D. 1903, a period of
about nine years.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, willfully and
knowingly violated the aforesaid law, and was and is guilty of a high
misdemeanor in office.
Art. 8. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed,
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as
judge, as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a judge of
a circuit court of the United States, heretofore, to wit, on the 12th
day of November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of
Escambia, in the State of Florida,
Sec. 2476
did maliciously and unlawfully adjudge guilty of a contempt of court
and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit to prison for a period of ten
days E. T. Davis, an attorney and counselor at law, for an alleged
contempt of the circuit court of the United States.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself in his office of judge, and was and is guilty of an abuse of
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 9. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed,
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as
judge as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a judge of a
circuit court of the United States heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day
of November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of
Escambia, in the State of Florida, did knowingly and unlawfully adjudge
guilty of a contempt of court and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit
to prison for a period of ten days E. T. Davis, an attorney and
counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the circuit court of the
United States.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself in his office of judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 10. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed,
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as
judge as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a judge of a
circuit court of the United States heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day
of November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of
Escambia, in the State of Florida, did maliciously and unlawfully
adjudge guilty of a contempt of court and impose a fine of $100 upon
and commit to prison for a period of ten days Simeon Belden, an
attorney and counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the circuit
court of the United States.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself in his office of judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 11. That the said Charles Swayne, having been appointed,
confirmed, and duly commissioned as judge of the district court of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, entered upon
the duties of said office, and while in the exercise of his office as
judge as aforesaid, to wit, while performing the duties of a circuit
judge of the United States heretofore, to wit, on the 12thdayof
November, A. D. 1901, at the city of Pensacola, in the county of
Escambia, in the State of Florida, did knowingly and unlawfully adjudge
guilty of contempt of court and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit
to prison for a period of ten days Simeon Belden, an attorney and
counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the circuit court of the
United States.
Wherefore the said Charles Swane, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself in his office as judge and was and is guilty of an abuse of
judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
Art. 12. That the said Charles Swayne, having been duly appointed,
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for
the northern district of Florida, entered upon the duties of his
office, and while in the exercise of his office of judge heretofore, to
wit, on the 9th day of December, A. D. 1902, at Pensacola, in the
county of Escambia, in the State of Florida, did unlawfully and
knowingly adjudge guilty of contempt and did commit to prison for the
period of sixty days one W.C. O'Neal, for an alleged contempt of the
district court of the United States for the northern district of
Florida.
Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved
himself in his office of judge, as aforesaid, and was and is guilty of
an abuse of judicial power and of a high misdemeanor in office.
And the House of Representatives by protestation, saving to
themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further
articles of accusation or impeachment against the said Charles Swayne,
judge of the United States court for the northern district of Florida,
and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the
articles herein preferred against him, and of offering proof to the
same and every part thereof, and to all and every other article or
accusation or impeachment which shall be exhibited by them as the case
shall require, do demand that the said Charles Swayne may be put to
answer the high crimes and misdemeanors in office herein charged
against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and
judgments may be thereupon had and given as may be agreeable to law and
justice.
J.G. Cannon,
Speaker of the Home of Representatives.
Attest:
A. McDowell, Clerk.
Sec. 2477
The articles of impeachment were handed to the Secretary of the
Senate.
The President pro tempore. The Senate will take proper order in the
matter of the impeachment of Judge Swayne, and communicate to the House
of Representatives its action.
The managers thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.
Having returned to the House,\1\ the managers appeared at the bar,
and Mr. Palmer reported orally:
Mr. Speaker, the managers of impeachment beg leave to report to the
House that the articles of impeachment prepared by the House of
Representatives against Charles Swayne, district judge of the United
States in and for the northern district of Florida, have been exhibited
and read to the Senate, and the Presiding Officer of that body stated
to the managers that the Senate would take order in the premises, due
notice of which would be given to the House of Representatives.\2\
2477. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The organization of the Senate for the Swayne impeachment trial.
The oath to the Senators for the Swayne trial was administered by the
Chief Justice.
At the request of the President pro tempore the Senate elected a
Presiding Officer for the Swayne impeachment trial.
The Senate being organized for the Swayne impeachment, the House was
notified by message.
In the Senate, after the retirement of the managers, Mr. Platt, of
Connecticut, offered the following resolutions, which were severally
agreed to: \3\
Ordered, That the articles of impeachment presented this day by the
House of Representatives be printed for the use of the Senate.
Ordered, That at 2 o'clock this afternoon the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the articles of impeachment of Charles Swayne,
judge of the United States district court for the northern district of
Florida, presented this day.
Ordered, That a committee of two Senators be appointed by the Chair
to wait upon the Chief Justice of the United States and invite him to
attend in the Senate Chamber at 2 o'clock this day, to administer to
Senators the oath required by the Constitution, in the matter of the
impeachment of Charles Swayne, or in case of his inability to attend,
any one of the associate justices.
In accordance with the last resolution, Messrs. Charles W. Fairbanks,
of Indiana, and Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, were appointed as the
committee.
Later, on the same day, in the Senate,\4\ the President pro tempore
\5\ requested that he be relieved of the duty of presiding at the
trial. Thereupon, Mr. John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, offered this
resolution, which was agreed to:
Resolved, That in view of the statement just made to the Senate by
the President pro tempore of his inability, because of recent illness,
to discharge the duties of his office, other than those involved in
presiding over the Senate in legislative and executive session, the
Hon. Orville H. Platt, Senator from the State of Connecticut, be, and
he is hereby, appointed presiding officer on the trial of the
impeachment of Charle Swayne, district judge of the United States for
the northern district of Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 195; Record, p. 1310.
\2\ The House itself did not attend its managers to the Senate on
this occasion or at any other time during the trial.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 121; Record, p. 1283.
\4\ Senate Journal, p. 121; Record, p. 1289.
\5\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
Sec. 2478
A message announcing this action was transmitted to the House.\1\
At 2 o'clock p.m., on motion of Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, Rule III
of the Senate, sitting for impeachment trials, providing that the
presiding officer should administer the oath, was suspended.\2\
Then \3\ the presence of the Chief Justice of the United States, Hon.
Melville W. Fuller, was announced by the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms.
The Chief Justice entered the Senate Chamber, escorted by Mr.
Fairbanks and Mr. Bacon, the committee appointed for the purpose, and
was conducted by them to a seat by the side of the President pro
tempore.
Mr. Fairbanks. Mr. President, the committee appointed by the Senate
to wait upon the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States and request him to administer to Senators the oath required by
the Constitution in the matter of the impeachment of Judge Charles
Swayne report that they have discharged that duty. The Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, complying with the request of the Senate, is now
present in the Senate and ready to administer the oath required to be
administered to the members of the Senate sitting in the trial of
impeachments.
The Chief Justice administered the oath to the President pro tempore
as follows:
You do solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of
the impeachment of Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the
United States for the northern district of Florida, now pending, you
will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So
help you God.
The President pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut will please
present himself as Presiding Officer of the Senate while in court and
take the necessary oath.
Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, advanced to the Vice-President's desk, and
the oath was administered to him by the Chief Justice.
The President pro tempore. The Secretary will call the roll, and as
their names axe called Senators will present themselves at the desk in
groups of ten, and the oath will be administered to them.
The oath having been administered to all the Senators present, Mr.
Platt, of Connecticut, thereupon took the chair, and announced:
Senators, the Senate is now sitting for the trial of the impeachment
of Charles Swayne, judge of the United States district court in and for
the northern district of Florida.
Then, on motion of Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, the
following resolution was agreed to:
Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that
the Senate is now organized for the trial of articles of impeachment
against Charles Swayne, judge of the United States district court for
the northern district of Florida, and is ready to receive the managers
on the part of the House at its bar.
This message was delivered in the House soon after.\4\
2478. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Ceremonies of demanding that process issue in the Swayne impeachment.
The Senate having ordered, on demand of the managers, that process
issue against Judge Swayne, the managers returned and reported verbally
to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 195; Record, p. 1312.
\2\ The Senate had overlooked the law relating to this subject.
\3\ Senate Journal, pp. 122, 346; Record, pp. 1289-1290.
\4\ House Journal, p. 185; Record, p. 1310.
Sec. 2479
Then, on the same day,\1\ in the Senate, at 2 o'clock and 27 minutes
p. m., the managers of the impeachment on the part of the House of
Representatives appeared at the bar and their presence was announced by
the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will conduct the managers
to the seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.
The managers were conducted to the seats assigned them within the
space in front of the Secretary's desk.
The Presiding Officer. Gentlemen managers, the Senate is now
organized for the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, United
States judge in and for the northern district of Florida.
Mr. Manager Palmer rose and said:
Mr. President, we are instructed by the House of Representatives, as
its managers, to demand that the Senate shall issue process against
Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States in and for the
northern district of Florida, that he answer at the bar of the Senate
the articles of impeachment heretofore exhibited by the House of
Representatives through its managers.
Then, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, the following resolutions were
severally agreed to:
Ordered, That a summons be issued, as required by the rules of
procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting for the trial of
impeachment of Charles Swayne, returnable on Friday, the 27th day of
the present month, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon.
Ordered, That the Senate, sitting for the trial of impeachment of
Charles Swayne, adjourn until Friday, the 27th instant, at 1 o'clock in
the afternoon.
The Presiding Officer then said:
The order having been agreed to, the Senate, sitting for the trial of
the impeachment, stands adjourned until 1 o'clock on Friday, the 27th
instant. The Senate will resume its legislative session.
Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, thereupon vacated the chair, which was
resumed by the President pro tempore.
On January 26,\2\ in the House, Mr. Palmer, on behalf of the
managers, reported orally:
Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to report on behalf of the managers in
the matter of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, district judge of the
United States in and for the northern district of Florida, that the
Senate has organized for the trial of the impeachment; that in the name
of the House of Representatives and in behalf of all the people of the
United States, the managers have demanded of the Senate that process be
issued against Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, to answer to the
articles hereinbefore exhibited against him at the bar of the Senate;
and that the Senate has advised us that process will be issued against
him in that behalf returnable on the 27th instant, at 1 o'clock p.m.
2479. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Proceedings on the return of the writ of summons in the Swayne
impeachment.
In response to the writ of summons, Judge Swayne entered appearance
by his counsel.
In the Swayne impeachment, in response to the motion of respondent's
counsel, the Senate granted time after the appearance to present the
answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 346; Record, p. 1290.
\2\ House Journal, p. 205; Record, p. 1415.
Sec. 2479
The managers and respondent in the Swayne case were directed to
furnish a list of their witnesses to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
Senate.
The oath to Senators in the Swayne impeachment trial was administered
by the Presiding Officer after the organization was completed.
On January 27,\1\ in the Senate, the President pro tempore said:
The hour of 1 o'clock, to which the Senate sitting as a court in the
impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne adjourned, has arrived. Will the
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] please take the chair?
Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, thereupon took the chair as Presiding
Officer.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make the opening
proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are
commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of
the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Charles
Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States in and for the
northern district of Florida.
The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now call the names of those
Senators who have not been sworn, and such of those Senators as are
present in the Chamber will, as their names are called, advance to the
desk and take the oath.
The Secretary called the names of the Senators who had not been
heretofore sworn, whereupon Senators Blackburn, Depew, Dryden, Knox,
and McLaurin advanced to the area in front of the Secretary's desk, and
the oath was administered to them by the Presiding Officer.\2\
Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, then offered this resolution,
which was agreed to, as follows:
Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate is sitting in its Chamber and ready to proceed with the
trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne.\3\
At 1 o'clock and 7 minutes p. m. the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms
announced the managers on the part of the House of Representatives.
The Presiding Officer. The managers will be admitted and conducted to
the seats provided for them within the bar of the Senate.
The managers were conducted to seats provided in the space in front
of the Secretary's desk on the left of the Chair, namely: Hon. Henry W.
Palmer, of Pennsylvania; Hon. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania; Hon.
James B. Perkins, of New York; Hon. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama; Hon.
David A. De Armond, of Missouri, and Hon. David H. Smith, of Kentucky.
At 1 o'clock and 14 minutes p. m. Hon. Anthony Higgins and Hon. John
M. Thurston, counsel for the respondent, Charles Swayne, entered the
Senate Chamber and were conducted to the seats assigned them in the
space in front of the Secretary's desk on the right of the Chair.
The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will read the minutes of the
proceedings of the last session of the Senate while sitting in the
trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne.
The Secretary read the Journal of proceedings of the Senate, sitting
for the trial of the impeachment, of Tuesday, January 24, 1905.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 346; Record, pp. 1449-1451.
\2\ The House managers called the attention of the Senate to the law
permitting the Presiding Officer to administer the oath.
\3\ This message was duly received in the House, Record, p. 1479.
Sec. 2479
The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now read the return of the
Sergeant-at-Arms to the summons directed to be served.
The Secretary read the following return appended to the writ of
summons:
The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to Charles Swayne, and the
foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the said
Charles Swayne by delivery to and leaving with him true and attested
copies of the same at 1215 Tatnall street, Wilmington, Del., the
residence of Henry G. Swayne, on Tuesday, the 24th day of January,
1905, at 7 o'clock and 45 minutes in the afternoon of that day.
Daniel M. Ransdell,
Sergeant-at-Arms United States Senate.
The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will now administer to the
Sergeant-at-Arms an oath in support of the truth of his return.
The Secretary (Mr. Charles G. Bennett) administered the following
oath to the Sergeant-at-Arms:
You, Daniel M. Ransdell, Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the United
States, do solemnly swear that the return made by you upon the process
issued on the 24th day of January, 1905, by the Senate of the United
States against Charles Swayne, is truly made, and that you have
performed such service as therein described: So help you God.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. I do so swear.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Charles Swayne, Charles Swayne, Charles Swayne,
judge of the district court of the United States for the northern
district of Florida: Appear and answer to the articles of impeachment
exhibited by the House of Representatives against you.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. President, on behalf of the respondent, Charles
Swayne, I beg to enter the following appearance:
To the honorable the Senate of the United States, sitting as a Court of
Impeachment:
I, Charles Swayne, judge of the district court of the United States
in and for the northern district of Florida, now present in the city of
Washington, having been served with a summons to be in the city of
Washington on the 27th day of January, 1905, at 1 o'clock afternoon, to
answer certain articles of impeachment presented against me by the
honorable the House of Representatives of the United States, do hereby
enter my appearance by my counsel, Anthony Higgins and John M.
Thurston, who have my warrant and authority therefor, and who are
instructed by me to ask this court for a reasonable time for the
preparation of my answer to said articles.
Charles Swayne.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 27th day of January, A. D. 1905.
I ask this be filed, and I submit a copy for the managers.
The Presiding Officer. It will be placed on file.
Mr. Thurston. On behalf of the respondent we make the following
motion:
In the Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of impeachment.
The United States of America v. Charles Swayne. Upon
articles of impeachment presented by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America.
The respondent, by his counsel, now comes and moves the court to
grant him the period of seven days in which to prepare and present his
answer to the articles of impeachment presented against him herein.
Anthony Higgins.
John M. Thurston.
Then, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, it was
Ordered, That the respondent present his answer to the articles of
impeachment at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes post meridian on the 3d day of
February next.
Also, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, at the suggestion of the managers,
it was
Ordered, That lists of witnesses be furnished the Sergeant-at-Arms by
the managers and the respondent, who shall be subpoenaed by him to
appear on the 10th day of February, at 1 o'ciock post meridian.
Sec. 2480
A proposition of the managers that the trial proceed on the 13th of
February was objected to by counsel for respondent, who suggested the
10th of February instead, and it was not pressed.
Then, on motion of Mr. Fairbanks, the Senate, sitting for the trial
of the impeachment, adjourned until Friday, February 3, 1905, at 12.30
o'clock p. m.
The managers on the part of the House and the counsel for the
respondent withdrew from the Chamber.
The President pro tempore resumed the Chair.
2480. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Forms and ceremonies in the Senate at the session for receiving
respondent's answer in the Swayne case.
Proclamation of the Sergeant-at-Arms at opening of session of the
Senate sitting for the Swayne impeachment trial.
At the presentation of the answer in the Swayne case the respondent
was represented by his counsel.
Rule of the Senate in the Swayne trial for submitting of requests or
applications by managers or counsel.
Rule governing the Senators in the Swayne trial as to colloquys and
questions.
On February 3,\1\ in the Senate,
The President pro tempore (at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m.). The
hour has arrived to which the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment
adjourned, and the Senator from Connecticut will please take the chair.
Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, assumed the chair.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Platt, of Connecticut). The Senate is now
sitting for the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, a judge of
the United States in and for the northern district of Florida. The
Sergeant-at-Arms will make proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made proclamation as follows:
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silence,
on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is
sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the
House of Representatives of the United States against Charles Swayne,
judge of the district court of the United States in and for the
northern district of Florida.
The oath was then administered to certain Senators not previously
sworn.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will notify the managers,
if they are in waiting, that the Senate is ready to proceed.
At 12 o'clock and 32 minutes p. m. the managers on the part of the
House of Representatives were announced, and they were conducted by the
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms to the seats assigned them in the area in
front of the Secretary's desk.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will also notify the
counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Anthony Higgins and Mr. John M. Thurston, counsel for the
respondent, entered the Chamber and were assigned to the seats provided
for them in the area in front of the Secretary's desk.
The Presiding Officer. The Journal of the proceedings of the last
session of the Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of
Charles Swayne will now be read.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 347; Record, pp. 1818-1832.
Sec. 2481
The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting as a court on
Friday, January 27, 1905, was read and approved.
Then, on motion of Mr. Augustus O. Bacon, a Senator from Georgia, it
was--
Ordered, That in all matters relating to the procedure of the Senate
sitting in the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne, judge of the
district court of the United States in and for the northern district of
Florida, whether as to form or otherwise, the managers on the part of
the House, or the counsel representing the respondent, may submit a
request or application orally to the Presiding Officer, or, if required
by him or requested by any Senator, shall submit the same in writing.
In all matters relating immediately to the trial, such as the
admission, rejection, or striking out of evidence, or other questions
usually arising in the trial of causes in courts of justice, if the
managers or counsel for the respondent desire to make any application,
request, or objection, the same shall be addressed directly to the
Presiding Officer and not otherwise.
It shall not be in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy, or to
address questions either to the managers on the part of the House or
the counsel for the respondent, nor shall it be in order for Senators
to address each other, but they shall address their remarks directly to
the Presiding Officer.
2481. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The answer of Judge Swayne to the articles of impeachment.
Judge Swayne's answer was signed by himself and his counsel.
The answer of Judge Swayne as to the first seven articles raised a
question as to the jurisdiction of the Senate to try the charges.
Then Mr. Thurston, of counsel for the respondent, said:
Mr. President, counsel for the respondent now come, and for answer of
said Charles Swayne under impeachment herein say:
And the said Charles Swayne, named in said articles of impeachment,
comes before the honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a
court of impeachment, and says that this honorable court ought not to
have or take further cognizance of the first of said articles of
impeachment so exhibited and presented against him, because, he says,
the facts set forth in said first article do not, if true, constitute
an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as defined in the
Constitution of the United States.
And now, not waiving the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction of the
honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of
impeachment, as to said first article, the said respondent, saving to
himself all advantages of exception to said first article, for answer
thereto saith:
He admits that on the 20th day of April, 1897, at Waco, in the State
of Texas, acting as United States judge in and for the northern
district of Florida, he made and presented to R. N. Love, the United
States marshal in and for the northern district of Texas, the
certificate in writing as set forth in the said first article, and did
then and there receive from the said R. N. Love, United States marshal
as aforesaid, the sum of $230 in full payment of the account certified
to as aforesaid, and the respondent says that he then and there
believed, and still believes and insists, that, under the true meaning
and intent of the statutes of the United States allowing the expenses
of a district judge of the United States for travel and expenses while
holding court outside of his own district, the said claim was just and
in strict accordance with the provisions of the law of Congress in that
respect enacted; and he denies that he then and there knew or believed
said claim to be false, as set forth in said article; and he denies
that he signed and presented the said certificate for the purpose of
obtaining payment of any false claim; and he denies that he then and
there made and used a false certificate knowing or believing said
certificate to be false. [Etc., specifying at length.]
* * * And respondent says that he attaches to this, his answer to the
said article 1, copies of certificates of the honorable the Secretary
of the Treasury, marked, respectively, Exhibits A et seq., and asks
that the same be accepted and taken as a part of this his answer to the
said article 1. * * *
These exhibits were attached, not at the end of the answer, but at
the end of article first.
To articles second and third, which related to the offense set forth
in article 1, answer was made in similar form.
Sec. 2481
As to article 4, the answer says:
And the said Charles Swayne, named in the articles of impeachment,
says that this honorable court ought not to have or take further
cognizance of the fourth of said articles of impeachment so exhibited
and presented against him, because, he says, the facts set forth in the
said fourth article do not, if true, constitute an impeachable high
crime and misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United
States.
And now, not waiving the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction of the
honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of
impeachment, as to said fourth article, the said respondent, saving to
himself all advantages of exception to said fourth article, for answer
thereto saith:
He admits that he was duly appointed, confirmed, and commissioned as
a district judge of the United States in and for the northern district
of Florida, and that he had entered upon the duties of his office prior
to 1893 and had continued in the performance of the duties and in the
exercise of his office of judge up to the present time.
He denies that at the time specified in said article 4, to wit, A. D.
1893, he did unlawfully appropriate to his own use, without making
compensation to the owner, a certain railway car belonging to the
Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railroad Company, for the purposes
stated in said article 4, or for any other purpose or purposes
whatsoever; and as to the true facts of the transaction referred to in
said article 4, he says, etc.
To article 5, which related to the same offense as article 4, a
similar answer was given.
As to article 6 the answer was:
And the said Charles Swayne, named in said articles of impeachment,
says that this honorable court ought not to have or take further
cognizance of the sixth of said articles of impeachment so exhibited
and presented against him, because, he says, the facts set forth in
said sixth article do not, if true, constitute an impeachable high
crime and misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United
States.
And now, not waiving the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction of the
honorable Senate of the United States, sitting as a court of
impeachment, as to said sixth article, the said respondent, saving to
himself all advantages of exceptions to said sixth article, for answer
thereto saith:
He admits that prior to the year 1900 he had been duly appointed,
confirmed, and commissioned as judge of the United States in and for
the northern district of Florida, and had entered upon the duties of
his office, and that he was in the exercise of his office as judge as
aforesaid at all times in the said article specified and as therein
alleged.
The respondent denies that he did not acquire a residence in the
northern district of Florida and did not, within the intent and meaning
of the five hundred and fifty-first section of the Revised Statutes of
the United States, reside in said district from the 23d day of July,
1894, to the 1st day of October, 1900; and denies that he violated said
section; and denies that he was and is guilty of a high misdemeanor in
office as charged in said article 6.
The respondent further says, etc.
As to article 7, which related to the same offense as set forth in
article 6, the answer is similar.
As to the remaining articles, relating to the contempt cases, the
answer begins as to each with a saving clause, and proceeds generally
as follows:
And the said respondent, saving to himself all advantages of
exception or otherwise to article 8 of the said articles of
impeachment, for answer thereto saith:
He admits that prior to the 12th day of November, A. D. 1901, he had
been duly appointed, confirmed, and commissioned as a district judge of
the United States in and for the northern district of Florida, and had
entered upon the duties of his office prior to said date, and continued
in the performance of the duties and in the exercise of his office of
judge up to the present time, and he says that at all the times
mentioned in said article 8 he was exercising and performing the duties
of a district judge in and for the northern district of Florida, and
that on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1901, he was holding a session
of the district and circuit court of said district at the city of
Pensacola, in the State of Florida,
Sec. 2482
and he admits that on said date he did adjudge guilty of contempt of
court and impose a fine of $100 upon and commit to prison for a period
of ten days one E. T. Davis, an attorney and counselor at law, as set
forth in said article 8, but he denies that said judicial action on his
part was malicious or unlawful, and, on the contrary, he insists and
asserts that said judgment was rendered and said sentence imposed by
him from a high sense of judicial and public duty, and that upon the
proceedings then pending and heard before him he could not have done
otherwise than to have adjudged the said E. T. Davis guilty of the
contempt of court stated in said article 8.
Respondent, further answering, says, etc.
And in conclusion the form of the answer was:
And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable court this his
answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him,
respectfully reserves leave to amend and add to the same from time to
time as may become necessary or proper and when said necessity and
propriety shall appear.
Chas. Swayne.
Anthony Higgins,
John M. Thurston,
Of Counsel for Respondent.
2482. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Forms of procedure of authorizing, preparing, and presenting the
replication in the Swayne impeachment trial.
Mr. Manager Palmer then asked \1\ that the following order be agreed
to:
Ordered, That the managers have time until Monday next, at 2 p. m.,
to consult the House of Representatives on the subject of filing
exceptions, demurrer, or replication to the answer of the respondent,
and that they be furnished with a copy of the said answer.
Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a Senator from Indiana, proposed instead an
order which, after a reference to the precedent of the Belknap trial,
and some modification as to time, was agreed to as follows:
Ordered, That the managers on the part of the House be allowed until
the 6th day of February instant, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, to
present a replication, or other pleading, of the House of
Representatives to the answer of the respondent. That any subsequent
pleadings, either on the part of the managers or of the respondent,
shall be filed with the Secretary of the Senate, of which notice shall
be given to the House of Representatives and the respondent
respectively, so that all pleadings shall be closed on or before the
9th day of February instant, and that the trial shall proceed on the
10th day of February instant, at 2 o'clock p.m.
Then, on motion of Mr. Manager Palmer, the following order was agreed
to:
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate communicate to the House of
Representatives an attested copy of the answer of Charles Swayne, judge
of the United States in and for the northern district of Florida, to
the articles of impeachment, and also a copy of the foregoing order.
After an order had been made for printing the articles and the answer
as documents, the Senate, ``sitting as a court of impeachment,'' \2\
adjourned until Monday, February 6, 1905, at 2 o'clock p. m.
The managers on the part of the House and the counsel for the
respondent retired from the Chamber.
The President pro tempore resumed the chair.
On February 4 \3\ a message from the Senate transmitted to the House
an attested copy of the respondent's answer, which was referred to the
managers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 359; Record, p. 1831.
\2\ These words appear in the Record. The Senate Journal (p. 359)
speaks of the ``Senate sitting for the trial.''
\3\ House Journal, p. 259; Record, p. 1887.
Sec. 2482
The message also transmitted the resolution of the Senate fixing a
time for the filing of the replication and further pleadings.
On February, 6,\1\ in the House, Mr. Palmer, from the managers,
reported the following replication, which was agreed to without debate
or division:
Replication by the House of Representatives of the United States of
America to the answer of Charles Swayne, judge of the
United States in and for the northern district of
Florida, to the articles of impeachment exhibited
against him by the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives of the United States have considered the
several answers of Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States
in and for the northern district of Florida, to the several articles of
impeachment against him by them exhibited in the name of themselves and
of all the people of the United States, and reserving to themselves all
advantage of exception to the insufficiency, irrelevancy, and
impertinency of his answer to each and all of the several answers of
impeachment exhibited against the said Charles Swayne, judge as
aforesaid, do deny each and every averment in said several answers, or
either of them, which denies or traverses the acts, intents, crimes, or
misdemeanors charged against Charles Swayne in said articles of
impeachment or either of them; and for replication to said answer, do
say that said Charles Swayne, district judge of the United States in
and for the northern district of Florida, is guilty of the high crimes
and misdemeanors mentioned in said articles, and that the House of
Representatives are ready to prove the same.
Then, on motion of Mr. Palmer, it was also--
Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate by the Clerk of the
House informing the Senate that the House of Representatives has
adopted a replication to the answer of Charles Swayne, judge of the
northern district of Florida, to the articles of impeachment exhibited
against him and that the same will be presented to the Senate by the
managers on the part of the House.
And also, that the managers have authority to file with the Secretary
of the Senate, on the part of the House, any subsequent pleadings they
shall deem necessary.
This message was communicated to the Senate very soon thereafter,\2\
and received during the legislative session.
On the same day, at 2 p. m., the Senate \3\ went into session for the
trial in the usual form, and after the reading of the Journal, the
Presiding Officer laid before the Senate sitting for the trial the
message which had been received during the legislative session.
Thereupon Mr. Palmer, for the managers, who were in attendance,
presented and read the replication.
Thereupon the Presiding Officer asked:
Have the managers anything further to offer?
Mr. Manager Palmer replied:
Nothing to offer to-day, sir.
The Presiding Officer then said:
Have counsel for the respondent anything to offer?
Mr. Higgins replied:
Should we be advised there is anything further to offer we assume it
can be done without a formal meeting of the Senate. It would be merely
to join issue, in technical phrase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 262; Record, p. 1939.
\2\ Senate Journal, p. 174; Record, p. 1915.
\3\ Senate Journal, p. 360; Record, p. 1922.
Sec. 2483
The Presiding Officer rejoined:
It may, under the order which bas already been adopted, be filed with
the Secretary.
Then, on motion of Mr. Augustus O. Bacon, a Senator from Georgia, it
was--
Ordered, That the Senate sitting in the trial of impeachment of
Charles Swayne adjourn until Friday, the 10th instant, at 1 o'clock p.
m.
2483. The Swayne impeachment continued.
Forms and ceremonies in the Swayne trial during the presentation of
testimony.
The House of Representatives, although invited by the Senate, did not
at any time attend the Swayne trial.
The respondent attended during the presentation of testimony and the
arguments in the Swayne trial.
Instance wherein a witness was examined on the question of issuing
process for a witness in the Swayne trial.
On February 10,\1\ in the Senate sitting for the trial, Mr. Augustus
O. Bacon, a Senator from Georgia, presented the following resolution,
which was agreed to:
Ordered, That the pleadings in the matter of the impeachment of
Charles Swayne having been closed, the Secretary inform the House of
Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed with the trial of
said impeachment according to the rule heretofore communicated to the
House, and that provision has been made for the accommodation of the
House of Representatives and its managers in the Senate Chamber.\2\
At 1 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m. the managers on the part of the
House of Representatives were announced, and they were conducted by the
Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms to the seats assigned them in the area in
front of the Secretary's desk.
The respondent, Charles Swayne, accompanied by his counsel, Mr.
Anthony Higgins and Mr. John M. Thurston, entered the Chamber and took
the seats provided for them in the area in front of the Secretary's
desk.
The Presiding Officer. The Journal of the proceedings of the last
session of the Senate sitting for the trial of the impeachment of
Charles Swayne will now be read.
The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting as a court on
Monday, February 6, 1905, was read and approved.
The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will inquire of the
Sergeant-at-Arms whether the names of the witnesses have been furnished
him by the managers on the part of the House and by the counsel for the
respondent, and whether those witnesses have been summoned for
attendance at this time?
The Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. President, the names of the witnesses for
both the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the
respondent have been furnished me and have been served, and many of the
witnesses are now in the city.
Then, on motion of Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a Senator from Indiana,
the following orders were severally agreed to:
Ordered, That the proceedings of the Senate sitting in the trial of
impeachment of Charles Swayne be printed daily for the use of the
Senate as a separate document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 360; Record, p. 2229.
\2\ No action was taken by the House, and it did not attend the
proceedings at any time.
Sec. 2484
Ordered, That the daily sessions of the Senate sitting in the trial
of impeachment of Charles Swayne, shall, unless otherwise ordered,
commence at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and continue until 5 o'clock in
the afternoon.
Then, on suggestion of Mr. Manager Palmer, the names of the witnesses
were called over to ascertain their presence.
Then Mr. Manager Palmer stated:
Mr. President, in the case of Joseph H. Durkee, of Jacksonville,
Fla., we have a certificate of a physician stating that he is not able
to attend. The certificate was sent to the Presiding Officer and by him
handed to me, and it has been exhibited to counsel on the other side.
Mr. Durkee is a witness who has been subpoenaed by both sides, and is
a material and important witness. I have a witness present who will
testify with respect to Mr. Durkee's present condition, and I ask that
Mr. B. S. Liddon be summoned to testify what Mr. Durkee's present
condition is, for the purpose of moving for an attachment.
Thereupon Mr. Liddon was examined under oath; and then the Presiding
Officer announced that the Senate would take into account the issuance
of an attachment.
Then Mr. Manager Palmer opened the case for the House of
Representatives, setting forth what the managers expected to prove.
Then the introduction of testimony on behalf of the managers began.
This presentation of testimony continued until February 20,\1\ when
Mr. Manager Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, announced that the case
of the managers was in.
Immediately thereafter Mr. Anthony Higgins, of counsel for the
respondent, proceeded \2\ with the opening address in respondent's
case. He not only outlined the defense, but entered somewhat into
argument on the legal features of the case. Mr. Higgins consumed the
remainder of the session on that day, and spoke some time the next
day.\3\
The introduction of testimony on behalf of the respondent then began
and continued from day to day.
On February 23 \4\ the Senate agreed to the following:
Ordered, That the session of the Senate sitting this day in the trial
of the impeachment of Charles Swayne shall continue until 6 o'clock,
when a recess shall be taken until 8 o'clock, and the session shall be
continued until 10 o'clock unless otherwise ordered.
2484. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The Senate limited the time of the final arguments in the Swayne
impeachment trial.
The Senate, after deliberation, permitted written arguments to be
filed in the Swayne case, but only in such way as would permit reply.
Rebuttal evidence was offered by the managers in the Swayne trial.
Order of final arguments in the Swayne case.
On the same day,\5\ Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a Senator from Indiana,
offered the following:
Ordered, That the managers be allowed five hours for the argument of
the case, the time to be divided between them as they may agree, but
the concluding oral argument shall be by one manager and shall not
exceed one hour.
Ordered, That counsel for the respondent be allowed five hours for
the argument of the case, the time to be divided between them as they
may agree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 363; Record, p. 2909.
\2\ Record, pp. 2909-2915.
\3\ Record, pp. 2975-2979.
\4\ Record, p. 3142.
\5\ Record, pp. 3142-3145.
Sec. 2484
These orders were agreed to, but presently the vote was reconsidered
on suggestion that the managers would prefer a different division of
their time, so that the closing argument might be longer than an hour.
So an amendment was adopted to provide that the closing argument by the
manager should not exceed one hour and forty minutes. As amended the
order was then agreed to.
Thereupon Mr. Manager Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, offered the
following motion:
That any of the managers or counsel for respondent having all or any
portion of his argument in manuscript, may deliver a copy of the same
to the reporter, and any portion thereof which for lack of time or to
save the time of the Senate the managers or counsel shall omit to
deliver or read shall be incorporated by the reporter as part of the
argument delivered, and any manager who does not address the court may
file an argument before the close of the discussion.
Mr. Palmer explained the reasons for this motion:
I wish to explain the reason why we ask for this privilege. We have
made no objection to curtailing the time, though this is the first time
in the history of impeachment trials where the time of the managers has
been curtailed. To be sure, the rule of the Senate provides that a case
shall be closed by two managers, but there has never been any limit of
time. We have consented to curtail the time of the gentlemen who are to
speak in this case so that some of them shall have forty-five, some
fifty, and some sixty minutes. Of course they will not be able to go
over the case and do themselves or the case justice in that length of
time. Their arguments can be printed in the Record and can be read
afterwards by anybody who desires to read them.
Again, it was ordered by the Senate the other day that a brief on the
part of the counsel for respondent should be printed, and a brief of 48
pages was printed about ten days ago, but we never got a chance to look
at it until this morning, when it was printed in the Record. That brief
pertains to jurisdictional affairs, and it is particularly desired to
print a brief of the law of the case to meet the brief on the part of
the gentlemen on the other side.
In the course of argument by Senators, Mr. John C. Spooner, of
Wisconsin, said:
I can see no objection to the publication or the printing in the
Record of any argument on one side which the other side seasonably will
have opportunity to peruse and to answer.
This is a case which involves, of course, the interests of the
people. It involves vitally the interests of the respondent. Whether
technically this is a court or not, it pronounces a sentence or
judgment. It is a court or a tribunal of first instance and of last
resort. There is no appeal from its decision. If it commits an error,
there is no reviewing tribunal.
Nowhere in any judicial tribunal in the country, I think, in a matter
involving not simply the right to hold an office, but the right ever to
hold an office of honor, trust, or emolument, would it be tolerated
that an argument should be made and communicated to the court without
opportunity to counsel on the other side to reply to it as fully as
they might be advised.
Now, if the managers have some argument to submit in answer to the
brief which is printed in the Record this morning, that, I should
think, would be entirely proper to be printed, but that the managers
shall be permitted to submit to the Senate, after the counsel for the
respondent have finished their argument, further argument on any of
these charges or these articles I think is against the justice of
judicial procedure.
Mr. John W. Daniel, of Virginia, said:
Mr. President, my disposition would be to vote for any reasonable
request made by the managers or by counsel for the respondent here, but
I could under no circumstances vote affirmatively on that request. In
my opinion it violates the fundamental principles of English and
American law. Every accused person is entitled to be present with his
counsel, to have an opportunity to hear every charge
Sec. 2485
and every word of argumentative speech that is made against him, and
also to have opportunity to respond thereto. It seems to me that a
statement of the case carries an enforcement of its justice. If that
request were granted a most serious and grave argument might appear in
print after this case was heard, presenting it in aspects which had not
occurred either to the accused, to his counsel, or to any of his
judges.
In response to these suggestions the proposed order was modified and
agreed to as follows:
That any of the managers or counsel for respondent having all or any
portion of his argument in manuscript may deliver a copy of the same to
the reporter, and any portion thereof, which for lack of time or to
save the time of the Senate, the managers or counsel shall omit to
deliver or read, shall be incorporated by the reporter as part of the
argument delivered, and any manager who does not address the court may
file an argument before the close of the discussion: Provided, That all
briefs and arguments shall be printed before the closing argument for
the respondent begins.
On February 23,\1\ at the evening session, counsel for the respondent
announced that their case was closed.
The managers then began the presentation of rebuttal evidence.
The rebuttal evidence being concluded, and the managers having, in
accordance with permission already given, submitted a brief to be
printed, Mr. John M. Thurston, of counsel for the respondent, on this
day (February 23) \2\ offered on behalf of the respondent, and by
reason of the approaching end of the Congress with consequent pressure
of legislative business, to submit the case without argument. This
offer was declined by the managers.
Mr. Manager Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, then began the
arguments in closing.
On February 24 \3\ Mr. Manager James B. Perkins, of New York. argued;
and was followed by Messrs. Managers Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, and
Samuel L. Powers, of Massachusetts, and they were followed on the same
day by Mr. Anthony Higgins, of counsel for the respondent.
On February 25 \4\ Mr. John M. Thurston, of counsel for the
respondent, argued; and then, on the same day, Mr. Manager David A. De
Armond, of Missouri, closed the case for the House of Representatives
and the people.
2485. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The Senate in secret session framed the rule for voting on the
articles impeaching Judge Swayne.
The respondent did not attend when the articles in the Swayne case
were voted on in the Senate.
Forms of voting on the articles and declaring the result in the
Swayne impeachment.
Judgment of acquittal entered in the Swayne case by direction of the
Presiding Officer.
The Swayne trial being concluded, the Senate, on motion, adjourned
without day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p. 3178.
\2\ Record, p. 3181.
\3\ Record, pp. 3246-3265.
\4\ Record, pp. 3365-3383.
Sec. 2485
The Senate announced to the House by message the acquittal of Judge
Swayne.
Then, on the same day,\1\ on motion of Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, a
Senator from Indiana, it was ordered that the doors be closed for
deliberation.
The managers on the part of the House, the respondent, and counsel
for the respondent retired from the Chamber.
The Senate proceeded to deliberate with closed doors, and at the
expiration of one hour and thirty-five minutes the doors were reopened.
While the doors were closed,
Mr. Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, submitted the following
resolution, which was agreed to:
Resolved, That on Monday next, the 27th day of February, at 10
o'clock a.m., the Senate shall proceed to vote, without debate, on the
several articles of impeachment. The Presiding Officer shall direct the
Secretary to read the several articles of impeachment in their regular
order. After the reading of each article the Presiding Officer shall
put the question following: ``Senators, how say you, is the respondent,
Charles Swayne, guilty or not guilty as charged in this article?'' The
Secretary will proceed to call the roll for the response of Senators.
Whereupon, when his name is called, each Senator shall arise in his
place and give his response ``guilty'' or ``not guilty,'' and the
Secretary shall record the same.
Resolved, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives of
the foregoing.
On February 27,\2\ in the Senate, the following occurred:
The President pro tempore. The hour of 10 o'clock having arrived, to
which the Senate sitting in the impeachment trial adjourned, the
Senator from Connecticut will please take the chair.
Mr. Platt, of Connecticut, assumed the chair.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Platt, of Connecticut). The Senate is now
sitting in the impeachment trial of Charles Swayne. The Sergeant-at-
Arms will make proclamation.
The Sergeant-at-Arms made the usual proclamation.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will see if the managers
on the part of the House are in attendance.
The managers on the part of the House (with the exception of Mr.
Powers, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Perkins) appeared and were conducted
to the seats assigned them.
The Presiding Officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms will see if the
respondent and his counsel are in attendance.
Mr. Higgins and Mr. Thurston, the counsel for the respondent, entered
the Chamber and took the seats assigned them.
The Presiding Officer. The Journal of the last trial day will be
read.
The Journal of the proceedings of the Senate sitting for the trial of
the impeachment of Charles Swayne Friday, February 24, was read.
The Presiding Officer. The Secretary will read the first article of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Charles
Swayne.
The Secretary read the first article of impeachment, as follows: * *
*
The article having been read, the Presiding Officer put the question:
Senators, how say you, is the respondent, Charles Swayne, guilty or
not guilty as charged in this article?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Journal, p. 365; Record, p. 3383.
\2\ Senate Journal, pp. 365-369; Record, pp. 3467-3472.
Sec. 2485
The roll was then called, Senators answering ``guilty'' or ``not
guilty.'' In the same manner the verdict was taken on each article,
with result as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guilty. Not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I............................................................................. 33 49
Article II............................................................................ 32 50
Article III........................................................................... 32 50
Article IV............................................................................ 13 69
Article V............................................................................. 13 69
Article VI............................................................................ 31 51
Article VII........................................................................... 19 63
Article VIII.......................................................................... 31 51
Article IX............................................................................ 31 51
Article X............................................................................. 31 51
Article XI............................................................................ 31 51
Article XII........................................................................... 35 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the vote on the first article the Presiding Officer announced:
Senators, upon Article 1 of the impeachment of Charles Swayne 33
Senators have voted ``guilty'' and 49 Senators have voted ``not
guilty.'' Two-thirds of the Senators present not having voted
``guilty,'' Charles Swayne, the respondent, stands acquitted of the
charges contained in the first article.
A similar announcement was made after the vote on each article.
At the conclusion of the voting, after the result on the twelfth
article had been recorded, the Presiding Officer said:
The Presiding Officer, following the precedent in the Belknap
impeachment case, calls the attention of the Senate to the twenty-
second rule of procedure and practice in the trial of impeachments,
which provides:
``And if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles
presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members
present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person
accused in such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of
said articles by the votes of two-thirds of the members present, the
Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment, and a certified copy of
such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of
State.''
If there is no objection, the Presiding Officer will direct the
Secretary to enter a judgment of acquittal according to the rule. The
Chair hears no objection. The Secretary will read it.
The Secretary read as follows:
The Senate having tried Charles Swayne, judge of the district court
of the United States for the northern district of Florida, upon twelve
several articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of
Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having
found him guilty of the charges contained therein: It is therefore
Ordered and adjudged, That the said Charles Swayne be, and he is,
acquitted of the changes in said articles made and set forth.
Mr. Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, said:
Mr. President, I move that the Senate sitting for the trial of the
impeachment of Charles Swayne adjourn without day.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes a. m.)
the Senate sitting upon the trial of the impeachment of Charles Swayne
adjourned without day.
Sec. 2485
The managers on the part of the House and the counsel for the
respondent retired from the Chamber.
The President pro tempore resumed the chair.
On the same day,\1\ in the House, this message was received:
In the Senate of the United States,
February 27, 1905.
The Senate having tried Charles Swayne, judge of the district court
of the United States for the northern district of Florida, upon twelve
several articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of
Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senators present not having
found him guilty of the charges contained therein: It is therefore
Ordered and adjudged, That the said Charles Swayne be, and he is,
acquitted of the charges in said articles made and set forth.
Attest:
Charles G. Bennett, Secretary.
The managers made no report to the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Journal, p. 393; Record, p. 3593.